About your Search

20130201
20130209
STATION
MSNBC 9
MSNBCW 9
CSPAN 4
KQEH (PBS) 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 3
WETA 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 40
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)
intelligence committee chaired by an feinstein brought the hearing to a halt. >> year-old mother and 92-year- old father who emigrated from ireland nearly 65 years ago. >> [inaudible] >> we're going to halt the hearing. and when asked the room be cleared and the codepink associates not be permitted to come back in. we've done this five times now, and five times are enough. >> 8 codepink activists were arrested. we'll have more on the hearing and be joined by the codepink founder medea gen -- mehdi benjamin. we will also speak with investigative journalist jeremy scahill and former cia analyst mel goodman. tens of thousands have taken to the streets in tunisia for the barrel -- burial procession of an opposition leader assassinated earlier this week. a political crisis has been mounting since the murder of chokri belaid, a leading human rights advocate and outspoken critic of the islamist-led government. and it's the turmoil on wednesday, the prime minister proposed to dissolve parliament and form a government but the ruling islamist party has rejected the prime minister's bid. in iraq, a ser
live domi n ico. looks like a protester is being removed. senator feinstein asked for protesters to be removed from the room. i was not able to catch a glimpse of the banner they were holding. it's not unusual to see these disruptions. but we'll get more on exactly what was going on there but these are live pictures right now. you hear the gavel but just quickly -- let's just -- we were going to talk about hagel but i want to talk about brennan. you are expecting fireworks, right? that's what we've been talking about. >> i think we expect brennan to be confirmed, especially considering polls on drones, for example, show 83% of americans a year ago support the president's use of drones overseas. that doesn't mean that there isn't a significant and deep disaffection for the use of them or, for example, we talked about it yesterday, or the which are or enhanced interrogation techniques as the bush administration called it. all of that is stuff john brennan knows a heck of a lot about and people will be outraged he is president obama's nominee. >> we discussed this prior but original
that information. intelligence committee chairwoman dianne feinstein said despite reports drones have killed hundreds of civilians -- >> the figures we've obtained from the executive branch which we have done our utmost to verify confirm that the number of civilian casualties that have resulted from such strikes each year has typically been in the single digits. >> john: which would make anyone opposed to the drone war killing civilians feel so much better. on the plus side, senator feinstein provided plans to provide oversight of the drone war. >> i also intend to review proposals for regulation -- excuse me, for legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a manner consistent with our values. and that the proposal to create and an na log of the foreign intelligence surveillance court to review the conduct of such strikes. >> john: it is worth noting a 2012 poll shows americans already think drone strikes are consistent with our values. nearly four out of five adults approve the use of drone strikes against terrorist suspects overseas. 2/3 suspected using drones to kill ameri
that was introduced last month by senator dianne feinstein, and that you heard mentioned again today by the president. now, that's not necessarily a done deal. that's not necessarily final. if that bill reaches the senate, the senate floor without a ban he is now a senator and represents the whole state. we called senator murphy's office tonight to get his reaction to this reporting of how gun policy reform might move through the senate. he said, quote, too many people in washington want to eulogize specific pieces of common-sense gun reform before the debate has even started. how can we wait for another state to join connecticut on the tragically long list of states devastated by gun violence? there would be more girls and boys alive in newtown today if the ban on military-style and magazines had been on the books in december. she does not yet have the votes she needs to pass it, but she is not giving. she has key supporters clueing dick durbin and chuck schumer. and remember, historically speaking, it was dianne feinstein who got the old assault weapons ban passed in 1994, and nobody thought she co
: way to get them. senator feinstein spent a lot of the hearing defending john brennan, talking about the so-called american citizen al awlkai. he was a u.s. citizen you. might not like the guy but he was a u.s. citizen. feinstein said it's no big deal that we killed them and if you knew what we know. yeah, why don't you share. why don't you ask john bran anyone who's in front of you going to be the next head of the c.i.a. if you vote for him, what evidence did you have to kill awlkai and his 16-year-old son in a different strike, who is also a u.s. citizen. there are no coincidences. we killed him and another u.s. citizenual with him in a separate strike, we accidentally happened to kill someone else in his family, a 16-year-old, also a u.s. citizen. those questions didn't get asked. asked who made the decision to execute a 16-year-old u.s. citizen, was it you or someone else? >> weirdly the u.s. senators were polite and did not ask. they asked interesting questions including this question. >> i never believe it's better the to kill a terrorist than to detain him. we want to detain a
. senator feinstein was obviously working behind the scenes. and so finally last night around 6:30, 7:00 last night, the white house relented and the president called wyden. i know you guys are going to talk to wyden later. but this is a very big deal because now the drone policy is going to be central to this confirmation hearing today. >> you know, yesterday pete wehner wrote this. and he's quoting barack obama from may 29th, 2009, the famous speech at the national archives. where he says, let me be clear. we are at war with al qaeda, but we need to update our institutions and do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process. in checks and balances and accountability for reasons i will explain, the decisions were made over the last eight years during the bush years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable. a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions and that failed to use our values as a compass. those words, steve, whether you agree with this drone program or no
last month by senator dianne feinstein, and that you heard mentioned again today by the president. now, that's not necessarily a done deal. that's not necessarily final. if that bill reaches the senate, the senate floor without a ban on assault weapons included, it is possible lawmakers could then amend the bill on the senate floor to include the ban. but they also might not. sam stein at "huffington post" reported today that the assault weapons ban might be strategically sacrificed in order for the rest of the president's plan to go through. sam stein reporting that advocates for gun control are not as concerned about the assault weapons ban as they are with some other elements of the president's package. jim kessler of americans for gun safety says, quote, if you are going to die at the hands of a criminal with a gun, it's going to be a handgun. and statistically speaking, which is what he means, that might be true. but it's not handguns that people remember from a tragedy like what happened at sandy hook elementary in december. it's assault weapons that now appear so difficult in po
. dianne feinstein said she will look into new legislation to govern overseas strikes. there was an interruption by protesters. it is three and a half hours. >> you are a disgrace to democracy. >> if the police will clear the room, please. will clear the room, please. [indiscernible] [shouting continues] >> [indiscernible] please clear the room. >> [indiscernible] please clear the room. [protest continues] all right, i think we should clear the entire room and then let people back in. what do you think? >> we need more capital police. >> yeah, let's -- [indiscernible] ok, we will try and start. ok, we will i am going to began this -- begin this hearing, and let me say right up front that the process is that people are respectful, that they do not shout, they do not hiss, they do not show signs, that this is to listen. if that is a problem for anybody, i ask you to leave their room now. -- the room now. what we will do is remove you from the room. let there be no doubt. so if i may, i would like to begin. the committee meets today in open session to consider the nominat
remove that woman. >> senator feinstein -- [indiscernible] >> please proceed. mr. brennan, the next time we will clear the chamber and bring people back in one by one. this witness is entitled to be heard, ladies and gentlemen, so please give him that opportunity. >> thank you. a thank you ghost of my family in new jersey, especially my --ndmomother [indiscernible] >> alright, which are run to halt the hearing. i am gone to ask that the room be cleared and that the code pink associates not be permitted to come back in. it has been done five times now, and five times is enough. so we will recess for a few minutes. [applause] [indiscernible] all right. ladies and gentlemen, if you would mind leaving, we will then have you come back in, but it is the only way i think we are going to stop this. we will recess for a few minutes. [indiscernible] john? john? [indiscernible] [indiscernible] left [indiscernible] >> ok, we will reconvene the hearing. mr. brennan, please proceed. >> thank you. i was talking about my parents. , my father, who raised my sister, brother, and i, chairs the opportunity
feinstein then let the hearing resume after about a ten-minute break with a lot of empty chairs in there. she is allowed to ask them to leave when there are disruptions that sort of determined at the discretion of the chair, wolf. >> there's been a bunch of questions on what's called enhanced interrogation. some call it torcher on very, very sensitive issues. what did he have to say? >> reporter: the nominee in the past has said that he opposed enhanced interrogation but he was asked about a statement he made in 2007 to cbs news in which he said in part, quote, there has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency, be meaning the cia, has in fact used against the real hardcore terrorists and it has saved lives. well, he was asked to defend that statement. why does he think back in 2007 enhanced interrogation saved lives but now he doesn't. this administration opposes enhanced interrogation, wolf. john brennan said, it was the work of this very committee that he's testifying in front of that issued his mind. they issued a 6,000 page repo
. there was no oversight of it. so, i don't know. i do know, though, that senator feinstein has finally gotten, she's the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, has finally gotten a report out of the committee, through the republicans and senate vote, allegedly it's 6,000 pages long. and it covers all things torture. and she's very upset about the film. and she believes that whatever you want to say about torture and its human rights violations, that it did not produce the intelligence that the film suggests that it did. >> and she says the use of these harsh interrogation techniques was quote "far more systematic and widespread than we thought." but how do we ever know if that report isn't published? >> this is one of the problems with oversight of national security matters. some of these things have to remain secret. you can debate over which ones should and which ones shouldn't. but someone has to decide that this information can be released without harming national security. and i don't see that happening any time in the near future. it is possible that some of the findings could get ou
, dianne feinstein, eventually cleared the room. later, brennan cited the protesters when he addressed what he called a misperception about the goal of the drone strikes. let's listen. >> i think there is a misimpression on the part of some american people who believe that we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. nothing could be further from the truth. we only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there's no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat. so we need to make sure there is an understanding, and the people that were standing up here today, i think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths. >> robin, when he described this as a last resort to save lives, one reaction i had is, among the lives we save when we use drones are those of troops who otherwise would be going into harm's way. >> absolutely. i lived in beirut when jesse jackson had to hold his nose and go to
feinstein. >> if you could please expedite the removal. >> more important than the children of pakistan and yemen? are they more important? do your job! >> the hearing serve as a public discussion of the most controversial counterterrorism policies that began under president george w. bush and, in part, have continued and expanded under president obama. brennan's defense of the secrecy surrounding the administration's most questionable program, targeted assassinations using drone aircraft, was as opaque as the program itself. >> what we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. i don't think that it's one or the other. it's trying to optimize both of them. >> some senators, including ron widen and angus king, pushed brennan to explain the legal at and justification for assassinating american citizens abroad. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. >> i understand you can't have co-commanders in chief, but having the executive being the p
feinstein's bill. >> how can it impede somebody's trite have a background check on their mental health before they buy a gun? what is it about that that impedes anyone's life? >> what becomes the line. we can have the discussion. most of my generation is on some kind of anti-depressant at some point. is that the line? do you impede those people's constitutional rights because they have taken an anti-depressant? martha: in many cases these young people have people in their lives who felt strongly their child was out of control and they were capable of violence but they had nowhere to turn. if you haven't broken a law you can't institutionalize your child. as a mom you can't imagine saying this. there are mothers out there who believe their child is not safe for society and they have nowhere to turn. i don't hear anyone screaming and yell being this issue. there was somebody around this issue who knew. there were people who said, that's the guy. everybody in town knew that would be the guy. that issue i would love to hear more from the president on this issue. it feels like we are going
in knowing what is happening. senator dianne feinstein, democrat from california, had an exchange. let's listen. [video clip] >> i would like to ask you about the status of the administration's effort to institutionalize rules and procedures for the conduct of drones strikes. in particular, how you see your role as cia director in the approval process. >> as of this committee knows, and i am sure once to continue to protect certain covert action activities. but let me talk generally about the counter-terrorism program and the role of the cia and its effort to try to institutionalize and ensure we have as rigorous a process as possible. that we feel we are taking the appropriate action at the appropriate time. the president insisted any action we take will be legally grounded, will be thoroughly anchored in intelligence. will have the appropriate review process, approval process before any action is contemplated, including those actions that might involve the use of lethal force. the different parts of the government involved in the process are part of the interagency and as terrorism -
example. senator feinstein's subcommittee -- she had a hearing last year. general cartwright and admiral pickering -- or ambassador pickering testified, and they went into this. any action we would take would have to be negotiated, it would have to be bilateral, no unilateral action, and they made that point again on the record in front of senator feinstein's subcommittee. and i support that. i agree with that. >> i have another statement from the report. the united states icbm rapid reaction posture remains in operation and runs a real risk of accidental or mistaken launch. i think that statement is pretty clear. do you agree with that? >> yes. i mean, i the accidental launch and those kinds of things are always to be concerned about, and we need to assure as we have over the years that that does not happen, but on the russian -- >> that we will run a real risk of accident or mistaken launch? >> if you put just "risk," but there's always a risk. when we are talking about nuclear weapons, and the consequences, as you know, you do not get a lot of second chances. we need to be very sure a
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)